Comparative study of intramuscular gold and methotrexate in a rheumatoid arthritis population from a socially deprived area

Monotreatment With Conventional Antirheumatic Drugs or Glucocorticoids in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

This is the first network meta-analysis to assess outcomes associated with multiple conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoid.

Objective

To analyze clinical outcomes after treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoid among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Data Sources

With no time restraint, English language articles were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant meta-analyses until September 15, 2022.

Study Selection

Four reviewers in pairs of 2 independently included controlled studies randomizing patients with rheumatoid arthritis to mono-conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoid, placebo, or nonactive treatment that recorded at least 1 outcome of tender joint count, swollen joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein level. Of 1098 assessed articles, 130 articles (132 interventions) were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline, and data quality was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool RoB 2. Data were extracted by a single author and checked independently by 2 authors. Data were analyzed using a random effect model, and data analysis was conducted from June 2021 to February 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A protocol with hypothesis and study plan was registered before data recording. The most complete of recorded outcomes (tender joint count) was used as primary outcome, with imputations based on other outcomes to obtain a full analysis of all studies. Absolute change adjusted for baseline disease activity was assessed.

Results

A total of 29 interventions in 275 treatment groups among 132 randomized clinical trials (mean [range], 71.0% [27.0% to 100%] females in studies; mean [range] of ages in studies, 53 [36 to 70] years) were identified, which included 13 260 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The mean (range) duration of RA was 79 (2 to 243) months, and the mean (range) disease activity score was 6.3 (4.0 to 8.8). Compared with placebo, oral methotrexate was associated with a reduced tender joint count by 5.18 joints (95% credible interval [CrI], 4.07 to 6.28 joints). Compared with methotrexate, glucocorticoid (-2.54 joints; 95% CrI, -5.16 to 0.08 joints) and remaining drugs except cyclophosphamide (6.08 joints; 95% CrI, 0.44 to 11.66 joints) were associated with similar or lower tender joint counts.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study's results support the present role of methotrexate as the primary reference conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.

Thioredoxin reductase selenoproteins from different organisms as potential drug targets for treatment of human diseases

Human thioredoxin reductase (TrxR) is a selenoprotein with a central role in cellular redox homeostasis, utilizing a highly reactive and solvent-exposed selenocysteine (Sec) residue in its active site. Pharmacological modulation of TrxR can be obtained with several classes of small compounds showing different mechanisms of action, but most often dependent upon interactions with its Sec residue. The clinical implications of TrxR modulation as mediated by small compounds have been studied in diverse diseases, from rheumatoid arthritis and ischemia to cancer and parasitic infections. The possible involvement of TrxR in these diseases was in some cases serendipitously discovered, by finding that existing clinically used drugs are also TrxR inhibitors. Inhibiting isoforms of human TrxR is, however, not the only strategy for human disease treatment, as some pathogenic parasites also depend upon Sec-containing TrxR variants, including S. mansoni, B. malayi or O. volvulus. Inhibiting parasite TrxR has been shown to selectively kill parasites and can thus become a promising treatment strategy, especially in the context of quickly emerging resistance towards other drugs. Here we have summarized the basis for the targeting of selenoprotein TrxR variants with small molecules for therapeutic purposes in different human disease contexts. We discuss how Sec engagement appears to be an indispensable part of treatment efficacy and how some therapeutically promising compounds have been evaluated in preclinical or clinical studies. Several research questions remain before a wider application of selenoprotein TrxR inhibition as a first-line treatment strategy might be developed. These include further mechanistic studies of downstream effects that may mediate treatment efficacy, identification of isoform-specific enzyme inhibition patterns for some given therapeutic compounds, and the further elucidation of cell-specific effects in disease contexts such as in the tumor microenvironment or in host-parasite interactions, and which of these effects may be dependent upon the specific targeting of Sec in distinct TrxR isoforms.

In-vitro and in-vivo monitoring of gold(III) ions from intermediate metabolite of sodium aurothiomalate through water-soluble ruthenium (II) complex-based luminescent probe

Real-time monitoring of drug metabolism in vivo is of great significance to drug development and toxicology research. The purpose of this study is to establish a rapid and visual in vivo detection method for the detection of an intermediate metabolite of the gold (I) drug. Gold (I) drugs such as sodium aurothiomalate (AuTM) have anti-inflammatory effects in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Gold(III) ions (Au³⁺) are the intermediate metabolite of gold medicine, and they are also the leading factor of side effects in the treatment of patients. However, the rapid reduction of Au³⁺ to Au⁺ by thiol proteins in organisms limits the in-depth study of metabolism of gold drugs in vivo. Here we describe a luminescence Au³⁺ probe (RA) based on ruthenium (II) complex for detecting Au³⁺ in vitro and in vivo. RA with large Stokes shift, good water solubility and biocompatibility was successfully applied to detect Au³⁺ in living cells and vivo by luminescence imaging, and to trap the fluctuation of Au³⁺ level produced by gold (I) medicine. More importantly, the luminescent probe was used to the detection of the intermediate metabolites of gold (I) drugs for the first time. Overall, this work offers a new detection tool/method for a deeper study of gold (I) drugs metabolite.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the biologic era: still an "anchor" drug?

The improvement of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management has been strictly related to methotrexate (MTX) long-term effectiveness, safety profile and its widespread use in clinical practice over the last decades. According to the results of several head-to-head comparative trials against other synthetic DMARDs, MTX has been recognised as the "anchor drug" for the treatment of RA at the end of the 1990s. The subsequent increasing knowledge in the area of RA pathophysiology has progressively expanded the arsenal of available therapeutic tools, especially by the introduction of novel drugs such as biological DMARDs. The introduction of therapies targeted to key molecules and cells involved in RA pathogenesis has significantly changed the strategies for disease management, possibly modifying the key role of MTX. This review first analyses data supporting the evolution of MTX towards the role of "anchor drug" for RA in the pre-biologic era. We will then examine how the introduction and progressive spreading of biological agents could have modified the central role of MTX in the approach to RA.

Treatment comparison in rheumatoid arthritis: head-to-head trials and innovative study designs

Over the last decades, the increasing knowledge in the area of rheumatoid arthritis has progressively expanded the arsenal of available drugs, especially with the introduction of novel targeted therapies such as biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In this situation, rheumatologists are offered a wide range of treatment options, but on the other side the need for comparisons between available drugs becomes more and more crucial in order to better define the strategies for the choice and the optimal sequencing. Indirect comparisons or meta-analyses of data coming from different randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not immune to conceptual and technical challenges and often provide inconsistent results. In this review we examine some of the possible evolutions of traditional RCTs, such as the inclusion of active comparators, aimed at individualising treatments in real-life conditions. Although head-to-head RCTs may be considered the best tool to directly compare the efficacy and safety of two different DMARDs, surprisingly only 20 studies with such design have been published in the last 25 years. Given the recent advent of the first RCTs truly comparing biological DMARDs, we also review the state of the art of head-to-head trials in RA.

Current immunotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is a common autoimmune disease primarily manifesting as chronic synovitis, subsequently leading to a change in joint integrity. Progressive disability and systemic complications are strongly associated with a decreased quality of life. To maintain function and health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, early, aggressive and guided immunosuppressive therapy is required to induce clinical remission. Antirheumatic drugs are capable of controlling synovial inflammation and are therefore named 'disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs' (DMARDs). This article aims to bridge the beginning of DMARD therapy with agents such as methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, injectable gold and (hydroxy)chloroquine with biological therapies, and with the new era of kinase inhibitors. Mechanisms of action, as well as advantages and disadvantages of DMARDs, are discussed with respect to the current literature and current recommendations.

Ex vivo effect of gold nanoparticles on porcine synovial membrane

Gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) have great potential as carriers for local drug delivery and as a primary therapeutic for treatment of inflammation. Here we report on the AuNP-synovium interaction in an ex vivo model of intra-articular application for treatment of joint inflammation. Sheets of porcine femoropatellar synovium were obtained post mortem and each side of the tissue samples was maintained in a separate fluid environment. Permeability to AuNPs of different sizes (5-52 nm) and biomarker levels of inflammation were determined to characterize the ex vivo particle interaction with the synovium. Lipopolysaccharide or recombinant human interleukin-1β were added to fluid environments to assess the ex vivo effect of pro-inflammatory factors on permeability and biomarker levels. The synovium showed size selective permeability with only 5 nm AuNPs effectively permeating the entire tissues' width. This process was further governed by particle stability in the fluid environment. AuNPs reduced matrix metalloproteinase and lactate dehydrogenase activity and hyaluronic acid concentrations but had no effect on prostaglandin E2 levels. Exposure to pro-inflammatory factors did not significantly affect AuNP permeation or biomarker levels in this model. Results with ex vivo tissue modeling of porcine synovium support an anti-inflammatory effect of AuNPs warranting further investigation.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.

Have traditional DMARDs had their day?

This review tries to answer the question of whether in the face of the recently introduced biologics conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can still be recommended in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We start with an overview of the oldest conventional DMARD, injectable gold (Au), which was introduced in the treatment of RA in the 1920s. The effect of gold is directed at a number of different sites of the immune system. A significant improvement of clinical and biochemical disease activity parameters as well as an inhibition of X-ray progression has been shown in many studies. Head-to-head comparisons between gold and high-dose methotrexate (MTX) demonstrated no significant difference but some advantages for gold. Since trials comparing biologics with gold will never be performed, an indirect comparison was done by analyzing the results of trials with gold with those with biologics. Conclusions from such comparisons have to be drawn with caution especially since the methodology for performing trials has changed with time. We selected four trials with gold (two open, one placebo-controlled, and one comparison with MTX) and five trials with biologics (three placebo-controlled, one dose escalation study, and one comparison with MTX). In all these trials baseline data regarding swollen joint count (SJC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were roughly comparable and, with the exception of interleukin (IL)-1 RA, demonstrated a similar improvement of over 50% already after 6 months [with faster onset with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha blockade]. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response data were not available for the older gold trials. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria could be calculated for the Au/MTX trial and were-for these compounds-only slightly inferior to the results with adalimumab. X-ray response is especially difficult to compare across studies. Although an inhibition with Au and MTX could be demonstrated, this occurred-similar to corticosteroid treatment-earlier and more pronounced with TNF-alpha blockers. We confirm the statement of Weinblatt that the most modern DMARDs do not appear to be much better than the oldest one indicating that conventional DMARDs are not outdated. Therefore, a sufficient trial of conventional DMARDs should precede the introduction of treatment with the very expensive biologics.